Home > Planning Board > Growth Management Plan > Vision21 > Public Discussion
Following the slide show presentation, the public offered the following comments:
Latest Webpage Update
- Vision emphasizes design, but should be balanced with environmental protection.
- Emphasis on landscaping, setbacks and buffers is good; we aren’t able to stop development but we can hide it.
- No mention of public transportation planning or public transit or interest in reducing the reliance on the automobile. Need to educate people about the importance of taking fewer trips in cars; there is a lack of public transportation including needs of young people to be able to get around.
- People want to protect rural character; public transit is contrary to preserving rural character. So are “centers.” You cannot have it both ways.
- By encouraging higher density development, we are increasing the volume of cars on our highways; relying on the builder’s remedy results in higher density developments.
- Vision comes across as encouraging high-density development.
- Has anyone calculated the average lot size envisioned in the Vision Statement?
- Vision Statement emphasizes design and site issues and villages; hope this is balanced with environmental protection, which should be a huge component.
- Vision is good; to bring it to reality need to state what HCPB will do to assist municipalities to achieve the vision.
- How can municipal planning boards encourage good design? Is it legal?
- To what extent have municipal planning boards been involved in the Smart Growth planning process?
- Consider holding an all-day forum for local officials on a Saturday; be more assertive in encouraging their participation.
- Surprised by negative response to survey question related to water quality.
- The vision gives the impression that we are encouraging development to become towns like Westfield and Green Brook.
- You can get a good handle on design control by establishing historic districts.
- Concerned about perceived vesting in existing zoning that makes changing existing zoning very difficult; with highway commercial zoning you need to deal with equity.
- Perplexing that 70% of survey respondents support funding open space preservation but fewer are concerned about water quality; the public needs to be educated on water quality issues.
- How do you supply water and sewer to small lot developments? Need to consider the economy of scale and the burdensome DEP regulations.
- How do you reconcile the CPB’s Vision Statement with Freeholder policy, specifically relating to bridges?
- Did the survey ask peoples preference for homes on large lots?
- The Vision Statement should include a mention of the importance of agriculture in the County’s past and its significance statewide; also address the pursuit of arts and bike trails.
- What can the County do to assist in the provision of affordable housing? Is there a role for the County to provide the infrastructure to make it economically feasible?
- Clustered development does not equal affordable housing. Unit cost is still the same.
- Smaller lot sizes do not necessarily result in cheaper homes; has any consideration been given to limiting the size of houses?
- Some municipalities give density bonuses to encourage clustering.
- Encourage reuse of obsolete buildings on farmsteads.
- Should County encourage builders to reduce impervious surface?
Provided by email@example.com on April 14, 2005.